On the Priority of Men in Language
Some feminists object to the use of the word "man" to expression mankind (maybe they too object to my use of the word "mankind". Maybe they prefer "humankind" or "personkind." I take it for granted we all know what I'm talking about when I say mankind, including the feminists, whom necessarily know what I'm communicating in order to object to it.) because it shows that men have some kind of superiority over women, or at least it is not gender neutral.
We do this with other things but we don't think twice about it. For example, I say, "Today was a good day." Obviously, I mean a 24 hour period. Sure, day could also mean daytime, the time when the sun is out, but that is not a necessary inference. When I say "Today was a good day" I mean both daytime and nighttime. Does this mean that the nighttime is somehow inferior to the daytime, or that there is some sort of inequality or bias that needs to be leveled out by time neutrality because I use daytime as standard? Of course not. But some insist on doing this between the sexes.
A shift in language to correct this "problem" is the use of the plural instead of the singular. For example, it is classically correct to say, "Someone left his phone behind." By my use of the word "his" I don't mean to denote a male, but just a person. However, a feminist "fix" to this is to say instead, "Someone left their phone behind." Of course, this is not correct. The use of the plural is inappropriate, yet is commonly accepted in defiance of the rules of English grammar.
There has been only one other time when I have seen this defiance of grammar to get a point across, and that's in sacred scripture, when the Holy Spirit, a Greek gender neutral word, is referred to as a "He." This is in direct conflict to the feminists project which seeks to gender neutralize where it is grammatically inappropriate.
But is there a problem to begin with? Granting for the sake of argument that this use of language puts a kind of priority on men, is this wrong? There two approaches I want to go from here, one appealing to a Christian, and the other to a non-Christian.
To the Christian, it seems like men are heads of things. Kings naturally have more direct rule over kingdoms, culture is rooted in the patriarchs and not matriarchs, and men are the head of the family. Think of the Roman jailer in Acts who was converted, and because of that, his household followed suit. Or when the Bible poetically declares, "As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord." Paul tells the Church that the husbands are head of the wives. And so on. The Bible does indeed indicate that patriarchy is not only tolerable, but how things ought to be. So, for a Christian, this difference in representation is not a problem.
To the non-Christian, I ask, are differences the same as inequality? Sure, there are differences in the way we talk about sex, but does this entail inequality. There are things that women can do that are good and honorable, yet, as a man, I can never be. For example, I can never be a mother. Do I complain about this and insist we are merely parents, and not mothers and fathers? If so, this diminishes the very distinctive thing that makes us who we are, men and women. No women, no feminism. So, in the same way, although there is a difference in language, it isn't obvious why this should entail an inferiority or superiority.
When we say two persons are equal, we mean to say that their being is equal in nature. Differences like male or female are part of each person, and there is a good reason for that. The word "person" was not applied to humans until the debates among the Church about the Trinity. In making sense of the Trinity, we distinguished three persons in one substance. This idea of persons and all its infinite dignity was then applied to human beings, both male and female. It's a great equalizer to be made in the image of God and share in His inheritance, even though there was a difference in role and submission between the triune persons and so there is such a difference in human persons. The feminist insistence on the difference in these persons in language devalues the general personhood of everyone, and so should be avoided.
We do this with other things but we don't think twice about it. For example, I say, "Today was a good day." Obviously, I mean a 24 hour period. Sure, day could also mean daytime, the time when the sun is out, but that is not a necessary inference. When I say "Today was a good day" I mean both daytime and nighttime. Does this mean that the nighttime is somehow inferior to the daytime, or that there is some sort of inequality or bias that needs to be leveled out by time neutrality because I use daytime as standard? Of course not. But some insist on doing this between the sexes.
A shift in language to correct this "problem" is the use of the plural instead of the singular. For example, it is classically correct to say, "Someone left his phone behind." By my use of the word "his" I don't mean to denote a male, but just a person. However, a feminist "fix" to this is to say instead, "Someone left their phone behind." Of course, this is not correct. The use of the plural is inappropriate, yet is commonly accepted in defiance of the rules of English grammar.
There has been only one other time when I have seen this defiance of grammar to get a point across, and that's in sacred scripture, when the Holy Spirit, a Greek gender neutral word, is referred to as a "He." This is in direct conflict to the feminists project which seeks to gender neutralize where it is grammatically inappropriate.
But is there a problem to begin with? Granting for the sake of argument that this use of language puts a kind of priority on men, is this wrong? There two approaches I want to go from here, one appealing to a Christian, and the other to a non-Christian.
To the Christian, it seems like men are heads of things. Kings naturally have more direct rule over kingdoms, culture is rooted in the patriarchs and not matriarchs, and men are the head of the family. Think of the Roman jailer in Acts who was converted, and because of that, his household followed suit. Or when the Bible poetically declares, "As for me and my household, we shall serve the Lord." Paul tells the Church that the husbands are head of the wives. And so on. The Bible does indeed indicate that patriarchy is not only tolerable, but how things ought to be. So, for a Christian, this difference in representation is not a problem.
To the non-Christian, I ask, are differences the same as inequality? Sure, there are differences in the way we talk about sex, but does this entail inequality. There are things that women can do that are good and honorable, yet, as a man, I can never be. For example, I can never be a mother. Do I complain about this and insist we are merely parents, and not mothers and fathers? If so, this diminishes the very distinctive thing that makes us who we are, men and women. No women, no feminism. So, in the same way, although there is a difference in language, it isn't obvious why this should entail an inferiority or superiority.
When we say two persons are equal, we mean to say that their being is equal in nature. Differences like male or female are part of each person, and there is a good reason for that. The word "person" was not applied to humans until the debates among the Church about the Trinity. In making sense of the Trinity, we distinguished three persons in one substance. This idea of persons and all its infinite dignity was then applied to human beings, both male and female. It's a great equalizer to be made in the image of God and share in His inheritance, even though there was a difference in role and submission between the triune persons and so there is such a difference in human persons. The feminist insistence on the difference in these persons in language devalues the general personhood of everyone, and so should be avoided.
Comments
Post a Comment